Weighing scale diagnostics method

ABSTRACT

Embodiments of the invention generally relate to weighing scale diagnostic methods employing a comparison of like component operating parameters. In certain embodiments, weighing scale component output signals may be analyzed to calculate the difference between any two current weighing scale component operating parameter values, and the calculated difference may be compared against a maximum allowable difference for determining if a problem exists. Alternatively, a statistical analysis may be performed that considers the output signal of a given weighing scale component relative to the output signal of another weighing scale component or to the collective output signals of all of the other weighing scale components, and the comparison may be used to determine if a problem exists.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No.14/337,127 filed on Jul. 21, 2014, which is hereby incorporated byreference in its entirety.

TECHNICAL FIELD

Embodiments of the invention generally relate to weighing scalediagnostic methods employing a comparison of like component operatingparameters.

BACKGROUND

Weighing scales exist in many forms, from small laboratory scales tolarge vehicle weighing scales. Of particular interest herein areweighing scales having multiple force measuring devices, which forcemeasuring devices may be modular in nature.

A scale having multiple force measuring devices will also typicallyinclude a frame, a load receiving surface that interfaces with the forcemeasuring devices, and a controller and/or monitor that receives signalsfrom the force measuring devices and typically provides a readout of theweight of an object residing on the scale.

A vehicle weighing scale is a common example of a multiple forcemeasuring device weighing scale. A typical vehicle weighing scaleincludes at least one scale platform (or deck) for receiving a vehicleto be weighed. Such a scale platform is often comprised of a metalframework with a steel plate deck, or the scale platform may becomprised of concrete (typically enclosed within a steel frame). Thescale platform is normally supported from beneath by a number of forcemeasuring devices, such as load cells. Vehicle weighing scales are alsotypically constructed with two rows of load cells aligned in thedirection of vehicle travel across the scale platform. When a vehicle isplaced on the scale platform, each load cell produces an output signalthat reflects the portion of the vehicle weight borne by that load cell.The signals from the load cells are added to produce an indication ofthe total weight of the vehicle residing on the scale platform of theweighing scale.

Vehicle weighing scales, and their associated scale platforms, can be ofvarious size. For example, such vehicle weighing scales are commonly ofa size that is sufficient to accommodate a multi-axle vehicle, such as asemi-truck trailer. Vehicle scales of such size may be assembled usingmultiple scale platform segments (modules) that are connected end-to-endto provide a full-length scale platform.

As should be obvious, the ability to monitor a weighing scale for properfunction is desirable. In order to do so, a monitoring methodology mustbe developed and particular scale behavior, or the behavior (e.g.,operating characteristics) of one or more scale components must beevaluated.

It is known to evaluate weighing scale function by monitoring theoperational characteristics of the scale's force measuring devices. Moreparticularly, one or more selected force measuring device operationalcharacteristics may be monitored and compared to a correspondingexpected operational characteristic. Associated threshold values maythen be set around the expected operational characteristic, with areading below or above said threshold values being indicative ofimproper operation or some other problem.

A negative issue associated with such a known evaluation methodology isthat of setting individual component operating characteristic thresholdvalues. The threshold values are generally set to trigger an alarm or toprovide some other notice or indication if monitored force measuringdevice operational characteristics exceed the preset threshold values.However, in practice it is often difficult to determine the correctindividual component operating characteristic threshold value to apply.For example, an individual component operating characteristic thresholdvalue that is set too low may trigger false alarms, while a thresholdvalue that is set too high may not trigger an alarm when a problemactually exists. This problem may be exacerbated when the normal valuerange for a given operating characteristic is very small. Likewise, itmay also be particularly difficult for an end user without appropriatetechnical knowledge and/or training to select appropriate individualcomponent operating characteristic threshold values, which may berequired in some cases.

From the foregoing discussion, it should be apparent that there is aneed for improved weighing scale diagnostic methods. Exemplary methodembodiments described herein satisfy this need.

SUMMARY

Exemplary weighing scale diagnostic method embodiments described hereingenerally include monitoring and comparing one or more operatingparameters of like scale components, which are, for purposes of theinvention, scale components that under normal conditions will have atleast one common monitorable parameter that has approximately the samevalue for each component. Exemplary weighing scale diagnostic methodembodiments described herein are, therefore, adapted particularly foruse with weighing scales having multiple like components. Like weighingscale components may include, but are not limited to, a plurality of thesame or similar force measuring devices, which may be in the form offorce measuring modules. An operating parameter of such a like componentmay be any component parameter having a monitorable output that may beused as an indicator of component or scale health. With respect to forcemeasuring devices, such operating parameters may include, but are notnecessarily limited to, zero balance change (i.e., weight output changeover time with only the dead load applied), temperature, digital signalvoltage and supply voltage.

Unlike the aforementioned known methods of evaluating weighing scalefunction, which require the establishment and setting of individualcomponent operating characteristic threshold values, exemplary methodembodiments according to the invention may be practiced by comparing thesame parameter of a plurality of like components present in a givenweighing scale. For example, various operating parameters of the forcemeasuring devices present in a multiple force measuring device weighingscale may be compared and evaluated.

Since the simultaneous failure of several weighing scale components isan unlikely occurrence, it is possible to evaluate component or scalehealth by selecting as a diagnostic parameter a given operatingparameter that is common to all of a plurality of like components thatare present in a given weighing scale, and then comparing the values ofthe selected diagnostic parameters of all the like components. Acomponent with a monitored diagnostic parameter having a value that isan outlier in comparison to (i.e., that deviates too far from) thediagnostic parameter values of the other like components of the scalemay be indicative of a problem with the associated component.Consequently, scale health may be evaluated by setting a limit on therelative difference (spread) between the diagnostic parameter values ofthe like components. Alternatively, a limit may be set on the deviationof a given diagnostic parameter value from a calculated measure ofcentral tendency of the diagnostic parameters of the other likecomponents, wherein the central tendency is defined as the central ortypical value associated with a probability distribution and whereincommon measures of central tendency include but are not limited to thearithmetic median, mean and mode. Still alternatively, a standardstatistical test may be applied to detect an outlying diagnosticparameter value.

In any case, threshold values do not need to be set on a diagnosticparameter value itself. That is, the determination of whether or not agiven diagnostic parameter value indicates a problem does not depend ona specific value itself, but rather on how the value compares to thediagnostic parameter values of the other like components. This allowsthe diagnostic parameter comparison to adapt to changing conditions,which is useful because in one case specific diagnostic parameter valuesmay be indicative of a problem while in another case the same specificdiagnostic parameter values may not be indicative of a problem.

One exemplary weighing scale diagnostic method includes selecting aplurality of like weighing scale components to be monitored; selectingan operating parameter common to the selected weighing scale componentsas a diagnostic parameter; receiving at a computer device output signalsrepresentative of the selected diagnostic parameter from each of theselected scale components; comparing the output signal value receivedfrom each selected weighing scale component to the output signal valuesreceived from all of the other selected weighing scale components;calculating the maximum difference between the output signal values ofany two selected weighing scale components; comparing the maximumdifference between the output signal values of any two selected weighingscale components with a maximum allowed difference; and, if thecalculated difference is determined to exceed the maximum alloweddifference, indicating a weighing scale component problem.

Another exemplary weighing scale diagnostic method includes selecting aplurality of like weighing scale components to be monitored; selectingan operating parameter common to the selected weighing scale componentsas a diagnostic parameter; receiving at a computer device output signalsrepresentative of the selected diagnostic parameter from each of theselected scale components; calculating a measure of central tendency ofthe received diagnostic parameter output signal values received from theselected weighing scale components; comparing the diagnostic parameteroutput signal value of each weighing scale component to the calculatedmeasure of central tendency value; calculating a deviation of thediagnostic parameter output signal value of each weighing scalecomponent from the calculated measure of central tendency value; and, ifthe calculated deviation associated with a given weighing scalecomponent exceeds a maximum allowed deviation, indicating a problem withthat weighing scale component.

Yet another exemplary weighing scale diagnostic method includesselecting a plurality of like weighing scale components to be monitored;selecting an operating parameter common to the selected weighing scalecomponents as a diagnostic parameter; receiving at a computer deviceoutput signals representative of the selected diagnostic parameter fromeach of the selected scale components; applying a standard statisticaltest for outliers; and, if the diagnostic parameter value associatedwith a given weighing scale component is statistically determined to bean outlier, indicating a problem with that weighing scale component.

In such exemplary implementations, the weighing scale may be a vehiclescale. In such exemplary implementations, the weighing scale componentsto be monitored are the force measuring devices (e.g., modules) of theweighing scale, and the force measuring devices may be load cells. Insuch exemplary implementations, the selected diagnostic parameter may befor example the load cell temperature, digital signal voltage, supplyvoltage, or zero balance change.

According to one exemplary implementation of a diagnostic method of theinvention, the selected diagnostic parameter is the temperature of theindividual force measuring devices of a multiple force measuring deviceweighing scale. In this exemplary implementation, the temperature of allthe like force measuring devices in the system is monitored. Atemperature output is typically available from force measuring devicessuch as load cells for use by a load cell metrology compensationalgorithm. The temperature of the force measuring devices is primarilydetermined by the environmental temperature and, therefore, should beapproximately the same for all of the like force measuring devices ofthe scale. While some small difference in individual force measuringdevice temperature readings may be expected due to the physical distancebetween the force measuring devices, a temperature difference betweenany two like force measuring devices that exceeds some difference limit,a temperature of a given force measuring device that deviates more thansome maximum allowed amount from a calculated measure of centraltendency of the temperature value of the other like force measuringdevices, or a temperature of a given force measuring device that isdetermined by statistical analysis to be an outlier from the temperatureof other like force measuring devices may indicate a problem (e.g., afailing temperature sensor) and can be used to trigger an alert, such asan alarm.

According to another exemplary implementation of a diagnostic method ofthe invention, the selected diagnostic parameter is the supply voltageof the individual force measuring devices of a multiple force measuringdevice weighing scale. In this exemplary implementation, an operatingsupply voltage is provided by a controller (e.g., a terminal) to all ofthe like force measuring devices of the scale. The supply voltage ateach force measuring device is monitored. The supply voltage should beapproximately the same for all of the force measuring devices in thesystem. While some small difference in the individual supply voltagevalues can be expected due to varying cable lengths, a supply voltagedifference between any two like force measuring devices that exceedssome difference limit, a supply voltage of a given force measuringdevice that deviates more than some maximum allowed amount from acalculated measure of central tendency of the supply voltage of theother like force measuring devices, or a supply voltage of a given forcemeasuring device that is determined by statistical analysis to be anoutlier based on the supply voltages of the other like force measuringdevices may indicate a problem (e.g., a damaged cable) and can be usedto trigger an alert, such as an alarm.

Yet another exemplary diagnostic method embodiment of the inventionincludes selecting a plurality of like weighing scale components to bemonitored; selecting an operating parameter common to the selectedweighing scale components as a diagnostic parameter; receiving at acomputer device output signals representative of the selected diagnosticparameter from each of the selected scale components; calculating adeviation of the output signal value received from each selected scalecomponent with a stored value established during a known good state ofoperation (e.g., at calibration); calculating a total deviation bysumming the calculated output signal value deviations of each selectedscale component; comparing the calculated total deviation against afirst predetermined threshold value; if the total deviation isdetermined to exceed the first predetermined threshold value,calculating the percentage of total deviation that is attributable toeach selected scale component and then comparing the percentage of totaldeviation that is attributable to each selected scale component to asecond predetermined threshold value; and if the total deviationattributable to a given selected scale component is determined to exceedthe second predetermined threshold value, indicating a problem with thatselected scale component.

A weighing scale evaluated using a method wherein the percentage oftotal deviation that is attributable to each selected scale component iscompared to a second predetermined threshold value may be also be avehicle scale, the weighing scale components to be monitored may againbe the force measuring devices of the weighing scale, and the forcemeasuring devices may be load cells (e.g., load cell modules). In suchan exemplary implementation, the selected diagnostic parameter may bethe zero drift of the force measuring devices (e.g., load cells), thecalculated deviation of the output signal value received from each forcemeasuring device may be the zero drift of each force measuring device,and the calculated total deviation may be the total zero drift of thescale. In such an exemplary implementation, the first predeterminedthreshold value may be some percentage of scale capacity and the secondpredetermined threshold value may be some percentage of total zerodrift.

According to one such exemplary implementation of this diagnosticmethod, the selected diagnostic parameter is the zero balance change ofthe individual force measuring devices (e.g., load cell modules) of amultiple force measuring device weighing scale. The zero balance changeis the difference between the zero balance value at the current timecompared with its value at the time of calibration. In this exemplaryimplementation, the zero balance change of all the individual forcemeasuring devices is monitored. The zero balance change should beapproximately the same for all of the force measuring devices of thescale. While some small difference in the zero balance change can beexpected due to the accumulation of debris on the scale platform, a zerobalance change of a given force measuring device that represents asignificant percentage of the total zero balance change of all the forcemeasuring devices may indicate a problem (e.g., a failing forcemeasuring device) and can be used to trigger an alert, such as an alarm.

Diagnostic method embodiments according to the invention are implementedon a computer device, such as a processor executing appropriateinstructions. The processor may be associated with a software programfor this purpose. In at least some embodiments, the computer device maybe a scale terminal, which is a device that is in wired or wirelesscommunication with the scale and may function to control the scale,display weight readings, display diagnostic information, etc. In otherembodiments, diagnostic methods according to the invention may becarried out on a computer device that is separate from the scaleterminal, and which may or may not be in communication therewith.

Other aspects and features of the invention will become apparent tothose skilled in the art upon review of the following detaileddescription of exemplary embodiments along with the accompanying drawingfigures.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In the following descriptions of the drawings and exemplary embodiments,like reference numerals across the several views refer to identical orequivalent features, and:

FIG. 1 schematically represents a typical vehicle weighing scale havingmultiple force measuring devices in the form of load cells;

FIG. 2 is a side view of the exemplary weighing scale of FIG. 1;

FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating the implementation of one exemplarydiagnostic method according to the invention;

FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating the implementation of anotherexemplary diagnostic method according to the invention;

FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating the implementation of yet anotherexemplary diagnostic method according to the invention, and

FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating the implementation of still anotherexemplary diagnostic method according to the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENT(S)

As explained above, weighing scales exist in many forms, sizes andcapacities. While method embodiments of the invention are not limited inapplication to weighing scales of any particular form, size or capacity,said methods are adapted for use with weighing scales having a pluralityof like components. The like components may be force measuring devices.The force measuring devices may be load cells or other devices usable toprovide weight indicative readings in one form or another.

One common exemplary embodiment of a multiple force measuring deviceweighing scale is a multiple-load cell vehicle scale. One such exemplaryvehicle scale 5 is depicted in FIGS. 1-2 for purposes of furtherillustrating method embodiments of the invention. As shown, thisexemplary scale 5 includes a load receiving platform 10 supported by tensubjacent digital load cells 15 that are arranged in rows of two alongthe length of the load receiving platform. The load cells 15 residebetween an underside of the load receiving platform 10 and the ground 20or another support surface. In this particular example, the load cells15 are of rocker pin design, such that the load cells may tilt inresponse to the entry or exit of a vehicle and subsequently return tosubstantially the same upright position. The reliability of the loadcells 15 is such that the simultaneous failure of several load cells isan unlikely occurrence.

At least the load cells 15 of the scale 5 are also in wired or wirelesscommunication (as indicated by the bi-directional arrows) with acomputer device 25 that is operative to control the scale, to displayweight readings when the scale is loaded, and possibly to displaydiagnostic information related to the scale and its components. In thisparticular exemplary embodiment, the computer device is a scaleterminal, which includes a processor, memory, and appropriateprogramming.

When an object to be weighed (a vehicle, in this case) is located on theload receiving platform 10, the weight of the vehicle exerts a force onthe load cells 15, each of which generates a digital output signalindicative of the weight supported by that load cell. Typically, theload cell output is corrected, as would be well known to one of skill inthe art. The digital output signals can be summed to obtain the weightof the vehicle on the load receiving platform 10. The correction andsumming functions may be performed at the terminal 25, or elsewhere.

One skilled in the art would understand that a variety of such scalesexist, and this particular embodiment is presented only for purposes ofillustration. Furthermore, method embodiments according to the inventionare applicable to other scale and force measurement device designs.

Using still the vehicle scale 5 as an example, scale functionality maybe evaluated in one embodiment by selecting as a diagnostic parameter(s)one or more operating parameters that are common to each of the loadcells 15. The selected diagnostic parameter(s) have approximately thesame value for each load cell during normal operation. This diagnosticparameter(s) is then monitored for each load cell 15 and the detectedvalue associated with the diagnostic parameter(s) of each load cell 15is compared with the detected values associated with the same diagnosticparameters of the other load cells 15.

As described above, exemplary embodiments of the invention may beimplemented by setting a limit on the allowable relative differencebetween the monitored diagnostic parameters of the selected weighingscale components, by comparing the diagnostic parameter output signalvalue of each selected weighing scale component to a calculated measureof central tendency (e.g., median) of the diagnostic parameter outputsignal value of the selected weighing scale components, and/or byperforming a standard statistical test for outliers (e.g., Chauvenet'sCriterion, Grubbs' Test for Outliers, Peirce's Criterion, Dixon's QTest, etc.) on the monitored diagnostic parameters of the selectedweighing scale components. An illustration of exemplary embodiments ofsaid methods may be easily made using the exemplary vehicle weighingscale depicted in FIGS. 1-2.

In one exemplary diagnostic method, which is represented in the flowchart of FIG. 3, the load cells 15 of the scale 5 are selected as thecomponent to be monitored 30 and a diagnostic parameter (e.g.,temperature, digital signal voltage, supply voltage, or zero balancechange) of the individual load cells 15 of the vehicle weighing scale 5is selected to be monitored 35. Appropriate diagnostic parameter signalsfrom the load cells 15 are received 40 by the computer device (e.g.,terminal) 25.

Once the diagnostic parameter signals are received 40 from all of theload cells 15, the diagnostic parameter value of each load cell 15 iscompared to the diagnostic parameter values of the other load cells 45,and a calculated difference between the diagnostic parameter values ofany two load cells is calculated 50. The calculated differences betweenthe diagnostic parameter values of all the load cells are then evaluated55. If the difference in diagnostic parameter values between a givenload cell and the other load cells 15 does not exceed a maximum allowedspread, then no problem is indicated and the process returns to thepoint of receiving a new set of diagnostic parameter signals 40 from allof the load cells 15. If the difference in diagnostic parameter valuesbetween a given load cell and the other load cells 15 exceeds a maximumallowed spread, then a problem with that load cell is indicated 60.

In another exemplary diagnostic method, which is represented in the flowchart of FIG. 4, the load cells 15 of the scale 5 are selected as thecomponent to be monitored 65 and a diagnostic parameter (e.g.,temperature, digital signal voltage, supply voltage, or zero balancechange) of the individual load cells 15 of the vehicle weighing scale 5is selected to be monitored 70. Appropriate diagnostic parameter signalsfrom the load cells 15 are received 75 by the computer device (e.g.,terminal) 25.

Once the diagnostic parameter signals are received 75 from all of theload cells 15, the median value of all of the diagnostic parametervalues is calculated 80. The diagnostic parameter value of each loadcell 15 is then compared to the calculated median diagnostic parametervalue 85 and the deviation of each load cell diagnostic parameter valuefrom the median diagnostic parameter value is evaluated 90. If thedeviation of the diagnostic parameter value of a given load cell fromthe calculated median diagnostic parameter value does not exceed amaximum allowed deviation, then no problem is indicated and the processreturns to the point of receiving a new set of diagnostic parametersignals 75 from all of the load cells 15. If the deviation of thediagnostic parameter value of a given load cell from the calculatedmedian diagnostic parameter value does exceed a maximum alloweddeviation, then a problem with that load cell is indicated 95.

In another exemplary diagnostic method, which is represented in the flowchart of FIG. 5, the load cells 15 of the scale 5 are selected as thecomponent to be monitored 100 and a diagnostic parameter (e.g.,temperature, digital signal voltage, supply voltage, or zero balancechange) of the individual load cells 15 of the vehicle weighing scale 5is selected to be monitored 105. Appropriate diagnostic parametersignals from the load cells 15 are received 110 by the computer device(e.g., terminal) 25.

Once the diagnostic parameter signals are received 110 from all of theload cells 15, a standard statistical test can be applied to determineif any of the diagnostic parameter values from each load cell 15 is anoutlier (i.e., sample data that is unusually far from the otherobservations). Several such statistical tests exist and would be wellknown to those of skill in the art.

One exemplary statistical test, the use of which is reflected in FIG. 5,is known as Chauvenet's Criterion. The basis of Chauvenet's Criterion isthat all samples of a data set will fall within a probability bandcentered on the mean of a normal distribution. This probability band isdefined as P=1−(½n), where n is the number of samples in the data set.Any data points that lie outside this probability band may be consideredas outliers. This is achieved by calculating how many standarddeviations the suspected outliers are from the mean 115: Dmax=(ABS(X−

))/S (i.e., the absolute value of the difference between each suspectedoutlier X and the sample mean

divided by the sample standard deviation S).

In this particular example, once Dmax has been calculated for all loadcells, a comparison can be made 120 to the number of standard deviationsthat correspond to the bounds of the probability band around the mean(i.e., the Z-value from the standard normal Z-table associated with thedefined probability P). If the probability band is not exceeded 125(i.e., Z-Value≧Dmax), then no problem is indicated and the processreturns to the point of receiving a new set of diagnostic parametersignals 110 from all of the load cells 15. If the probability band isexceeded 125 (i.e., Dmax>Z-Value), then a problem with that load cell isindicated 130.

In one further illustration of the foregoing exemplary diagnosticmethods, force measuring device temperature output is selected as thediagnostic parameter to be monitored, the vehicle weighing scale 5 mayagain be used as the exemplary scale device, and the individual loadcells 15 thereof may represent the force measuring devices of interest.As mentioned above, a temperature output is typically available fromforce measuring devices such as load cells for use by a load cellmetrology compensation algorithm. As can be understood from theforegoing description, the temperature of the load cells 15 will usuallybe determined primarily by the environmental temperature in which theload cells are operating. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that theoperating temperature should be approximately the same for all of thelike load cells 15 of the scale 5.

It is known from experience that some difference in load celltemperatures may be expected due to the physical distance between theload cells 15, etc. However, it is also possible from experimentationand observation under various environmental conditions to develop anexpected, normal temperature spread for the load cells of scales of likeor similar design. Consequently, according to the exemplary diagnosticmethod represented in FIG. 3, the expected temperature spread can beused to set a limit on the amount by which the temperatures of any twogiven load cells 15 may differ. When the temperature spread between anytwo load cells exceeds this limit, a problem may be indicated and analert, such as an alarm, may be triggered.

Alternatively, and according to the exemplary diagnostic methodrepresented in FIG. 4, a median load cell temperature value may becalculated from the temperature of all the load cells, and the deviationof the temperature of each load cell from the median temperature may bedetermined. A load cell whose temperature deviates from the mediantemperature by more than a predetermined maximum temperature deviationvalue may be indicative of a problem with that load cell 15 and maytrigger an alert, such as an alarm.

Still alternatively, and according to the exemplary diagnostic methodrepresented in FIG. 5, a statistical test can be applied to determine ifthe temperature of any load cell is a statistical outlier compared tothe temperatures of the other load cells. A load cell whose temperatureis determined to be a statistical outlier may be indicative of a problemwith that load cell 15 and may trigger an alert, such as an alarm.

Comparing the load cell temperature of a given load cell to thetemperature of each of the other load cells of the scale or to a medianload cell temperature, or identifying outlying load cell temperatures bystatistical analysis eliminates the need for determining and thensetting a threshold around the monitored operating parameter itself(i.e., a range of acceptable individual load cell temperatures in thiscase), which allows the diagnostic parameter comparison to better adaptto changing conditions. This is useful, because in one case a given loadcell temperature reading may be indicative of a problem while in anothercase the same temperature reading may not be indicative of a problem.

As an example of the aforementioned situation, consider a case where thetemperature of the ten load cells 15 of the vehicle weighing scale 5 are20.1° C., 19.7° C., 20.5° C., 20.2° C., 20.9° C., 20.7° C., 19.9° C.,21.0° C., 20.6° C. and 33.2° C. For this example, also assume that theminimum and maximum load cell operating temperatures are −10° C. and 40°C., respectively. In order to avoid speculating as to what sort ofenvironmental conditions the load cells will be subjected to and whatrange of load cell temperatures may be expected as a result, knowndiagnostic techniques might very well adopt the −10° C. and 40° C.temperatures as lower and upper diagnostic threshold values for each ofthe load cells 15. Consequently, no indication of a faulty load cellwould be given in this example despite the significantly differenttemperature of one of the load cells 15, because all of the load celltemperatures are within the allowed threshold values.

In contrast, method embodiments of the invention would identify the33.2° C. temperature reading as an outlier and possibly indicative of aproblem with the associated load cell 15. For example, expectedtemperature spread data may be used to set a limit on the amount thatthe temperature of any one load cell may differ from the temperature ofanother load cell, or to set a limit on the maximum amount thetemperature of any load cell may deviate from the median load celltemperature, without indicating a problem with that load cell. Forexample, depending on the scale design, the load cell design, etc., thetemperature spread between any two load cells may not be permitted todiffer by more than 5° C. or the temperature of a given load cell maynot be permitted to deviate by more than 5° C. from the median load celltemperature, without being identified as an outlier.

Using the previous example of ten load cell temperatures, the maximumtemperature spread (i.e., 33.2° C.−19.7° C.=13.5° C.) and the deviationfrom the median temperature (i.e., 33.2° C.−20.5° C.=12.7° C.) bothidentify the 33.2° C. temperature as an outlier. The outlyingtemperature of the given load cell may indicate a problem with that loadcell (e.g., a failing temperature sensor) and may trigger an indicator,such as an alarm, before an actual cell failure (e.g., an inaccurateweight output) occurs.

Alternatively, the 33.2° C. temperature reading may be identified as anoutlier by one or more of the aforementioned statistical tests foridentifying outliers. Applying the aforementioned Chauvenet's Criterionto this example reveals that the value of Dmax for the load cellassociated with the 33.2° C. temperature exceeds the expected Z-Value(i.e., 2.83>1.96), thereby identifying the 33.2° C. temperature as anoutlier. The outlying temperature of the given load cell may indicate aproblem with that load cell (e.g., a failing temperature sensor) and maytrigger an indicator, such as an alarm, before an actual cell failure(e.g., an inaccurate weight output) occurs.

In another further illustration of the foregoing exemplary diagnosticmethods, force measuring device supply voltage is selected as thediagnostic parameter to be monitored, the vehicle weighing scale 5 mayagain be used as the exemplary scale device, and the individual loadcells 15 thereof may represent the force measuring devices of interest.As mentioned above, an operating supply voltage is typically supplied tosuch load cells by a controller (e.g., terminal) or another device. Thesupply voltage to each of the load cells 15 should be approximately thesame for all of the force measuring devices in the system, exceptingsome small differences due to varying cable lengths.

While it is known from experience that some small difference in loadcell supply voltages may be expected due to varying cable lengths, it isalso possible from experimentation and observation to develop anexpected, normal supply voltage for the load cells of scales of like orsimilar design. Consequently, according to the exemplary diagnosticmethod represented in FIG. 3, the expected supply voltage spread can beused to set a limit on the amount by which the supply voltages of anytwo given load cells 15 may differ. When the supply voltage spreadbetween any two load cells exceeds this limit, a problem may beindicated and an alert, such as an alarm, may be triggered.

Alternatively, and according to the exemplary diagnostic methodrepresented in FIG. 4, a median load cell supply voltage value may becalculated from the supply voltages of all the load cells, and thedeviation of the supply voltage of each load cell from the median supplyvoltage may be determined. A load cell whose supply voltage deviatesfrom the median supply voltage by more than a predetermined maximumsupply voltage deviation value may be indicative of a problem with thatload cell 15 and may trigger an alert, such as an alarm.

Still alternatively, and according to the exemplary diagnostic methodrepresented in FIG. 5, a statistical test can be applied to determine ifthe supply voltage of any load cell is a statistical outlier compared tothe supply voltage of the other load cells. A load cell whose supplyvoltage is determined to be a statistical outlier may be indicative of aproblem with that load cell 15 and may trigger an alert, such as analarm.

Comparing the supply voltage of a given load cell to the supply voltageof each of the other load cells of the scale or to a median load cellsupply voltage, or identifying outlying load cell supply voltages bystatistical analysis, eliminates the need for determining and thensetting a threshold around the operating parameter itself (i.e., a rangeof acceptable individual load cell supply voltages in this case), whichallows the diagnostic parameter comparison to better adapt to changingconditions. This is useful, because in one case a given load cell supplyvoltage reading may be indicative of a problem while in another case thesame supply voltage reading may not be indicative of a problem.

As an example of the aforementioned situation, consider a case where thesupply voltage of the ten load cells 15 of the vehicle weighing scale 5are 25.1V, 24.7V, 23.5V, 24.2V, 23.9V, 25.0V, 23.7V, 24.8V, 25.2V and8.2V. For this example, also assume that the minimum and maximum loadcell operating supply voltages are 5V and 30V, respectively. In order toavoid speculating as to what range of load cell supply voltages may beexpected as a result of the power supply to which the load cells 15 areeventually connected, known diagnostic techniques might very well adoptthe 5V and 30V supply voltages as lower and upper diagnostic thresholdvalues for each of the load cells 15. Consequently, no indication of afaulty load cell would be given in this example despite thesignificantly different supply voltage of one of the load cells 15,because all of the load cell supply voltages are within the allowedthreshold values.

In contrast, method embodiments of the invention would identify the 8.2Vsupply voltage reading as an outlier and possibly indicative of aproblem with the associated load cell 15. For example, expected supplyvoltage spread data may be used to set a limit on the amount that thesupply voltage of any one load cell may differ from the supply voltageof another load cell, or to set a limit on the maximum amount the supplyvoltage of any load cell may deviate from the median load cell supplyvoltage, without indicating a problem with that load cell. For example,depending on the scale design, the load cell design, etc., the supplyvoltage spread between any two load cells may not be permitted to differby more than 5V or the supply voltage of a given load cell may not bepermitted to deviate by more than 5V from the median load cell supplyvoltage, without being identified as an outlier.

Using the previous example of ten load cell supply voltages, the maximumsupply voltage spread (i.e., 25.2V−8.2V=17.0V) and the deviation fromthe median supply voltage (i.e., 24.5V−8.2V=16.3V) both identify the8.2V supply voltage as an outlier. The outlying supply voltage of thegiven load cell may indicate a problem with that load cell (e.g., adamaged cable) and may trigger an indicator, such as an alarm, before anactual cell failure (e.g., no weight output due to insufficient voltage)occurs.

Alternatively, the 8.2V supply voltage reading may be identified as anoutlier by one or more of the aforementioned statistical tests foridentifying outliers. Applying Chauvenet's Criterion to the previousexample, the value of Dmax for the load cell associated with the 8.2Vsupply voltage exceeds the expected Z-Value (i.e., 2.83>1.96) andidentifies the 8.2V supply voltage as an outlier. The outlying supplyvoltage of the given load cell may indicate a problem with that loadcell (e.g., a damaged cable) and may trigger an indicator, such as analarm, before an actual cell failure (e.g., no weight output due toinsufficient voltage) occurs.

In another exemplary diagnostic method according to the invention, whichis represented in the flow chart of FIG. 6, the load cells 15 of thescale 5 are selected as the component to be monitored 135 and the zerobalance change of the individual load cells 15 of the vehicle weighingscale 5 is selected as the diagnostic parameter to be monitored 140.Appropriate signals from the load cells 15 are received 145 by thecomputer device (e.g., terminal) 25.

As one of skill in the art would understand, the zero balance procedureinvolves obtaining a force measuring device output value for each forcemeasuring device of a scale and also a sum of all the force measuringdevice output values, while the scale is in an unloaded state.Therefore, during the zero balance calibration process for the vehicleweighing scale 5, a zero balance reading for each individual load cell15 is stored at the terminal 25 and/or otherwise, as is a zero balancereading for the entire scale (i.e., a cumulative value for all of theload cells). Also, each time a scale zero command is issued, the scaleis assumed to be in a no load condition.

The zero balance change of the individual load cells 15 may be moreaccurately described as a zero drift error. During application of theexemplary method to the exemplary vehicle weighing scale 5, a zero drifterror may only be recognized, for example, if a zero command is issued(either manually or during the scale power-up process), the scale is notin motion, the zero is in the zero capture range (a set range around theoriginal zero condition for the scale), the total zero drift is above 1%of the scale capacity (a value determined based on the design of theexemplary vehicle weighing scale 5 and the load cells 15 employed), andthe acceptable zero drift threshold is exceeded for an individual loadcell.

It is first determined whether there has been a significant total loadcell zero drift since the last zero command was issued. Total Zero Driftis defined as the sum of the absolute value of the difference betweenthe current and calibrated zero balance reading for each load cell. Thezero drift for a given load cell (LC) is determined by the followingequation:

LC Zero Drift=abs (Current LC Zero−Calibrated LC Zero)

and Total Zero Drift for all of the load cells may be determined by thefollowing equation:

Total Zero Drift=Σ_(i=1) ^(n)LC Zero Drift[i]

where n is the number of load cells in the scale.

With respect to the exemplary vehicle weighing scale 5, the zero driftfor each load cell 15 is determined by comparing the current zeroreading of the load cell with the zero reading obtained during scalecalibration 150. The absolute value differences between the current zeroreading and the calibrated zero reading of each load cell are thensummed to obtain a Total Zero Drift value 155 for the vehicle weighingscale 5. The calculated Total Zero Drift is then compared to apredetermined percentage of the scale capacity 160. In this particularexample, if the calculated Total Zero Drift value for the vehicleweighing scale divided by the scale capacity is greater than 1%, thediagnostic method continues to a first step 165 of a second test. Thecomparison of Total Zero Drift to scale capacity may be represented as:

IF Total Zero Drift/Scale Capacity>1% THEN Continue to Test 2

The second test is used to determine whether one or a small number ofthe load cells 15 of the vehicle weighing scale 5 account for themajority of the Total Zero Drift. If each load cell exhibits anapproximately equal amount of the Total Zero Drift (i.e., each load cellexhibits a similar amount of zero drift), it is likely that anycalculated zero drift is not indicative of a problem with the loadcells, but due to another factor such as for example, a simpleaccumulation or removal of dust, snow, ice, etc., from the scale deck10. In contrast, if only one or a small number (e.g., two load cells)account for a large percentage of the Total Zero Drift, a load cellproblem is likely and should be indicated, whether by an alarm orotherwise.

As discussed above, this diagnostic method is based on a comparison ofthe selected diagnostic parameter values of all the similar components(load cells 15) in the system (weighing scale 5). Thus, a first step 165of the second test is operative in this case to calculate percentage ofTotal Zero Drift attributable to each load cell. The second step 170 ofthe second test then determines whether the percentage of Total ZeroDrift attributable to a given load cell exceeds some preset zero driftthreshold value. The steps of the second test may be represented as:

IF (LC Zero Drift[i]/Total Zero Drift)>Zero Drift Threshold THENincrement Zero Drift Error Counter[i]

where the Zero Drift Threshold in this case is a user entered valuebetween 50% and 100% and the default value=50%. In other words, in thisexample the second test will indicate a problem load cell when the zerodrift value of that load cell accounts for 50%-100% of the calculatedTotal Zero Drift of the scale 5. The zero drift threshold value may varyfrom scale-to-scale depending on the scale construction, the number ofload cells present, the type of load cells used, the load cellsensitivity, the scale capacity, etc. In addition to a zero drift errorbeing indicated 175 as an alarm, etc.; a zero drift error may berecorded in the scale maintenance log along with an identification ofthe problem load cell(s).

Diagnostic method embodiments according to the invention are implementedon and by a computer device having a processor executing appropriateinstructions. The processor may be associated with a software program(s)for this purpose. In at least some exemplary embodiments, the computerdevice is a scale terminal which, as would be familiar to one of skillin the art, is a device that is in electronic communication with a scaleand the force measuring devices thereof and may function to control thescale, display weight readings, display diagnostic information, etc. Twonon-limiting examples of such a terminal are the IND560 PDX Terminal andthe IND780 Terminal, both available from Mettler-Toledo, LLC inColumbus, Ohio. In other embodiments, diagnostic methods according tothe invention may be carried out on a computer device that is separatefrom the scale terminal, and which may or may not be in communicationtherewith.

In operation, the computer device receives output signals from aplurality of like components (e.g., force measuring devices) of a givenweighing scale that are indicative of the selected diagnostic parameter,evaluates the signals relating to a selected diagnostic parameterassociated with the like components to identify outliers and, when anoutlier(s) is detected, indicates a problem with the component(s) fromwhich the outlying output was received and/or takes some other action.The processor of the computer device or a software program executed bythe processor is provided with the appropriate formulas and threshold orother values necessary to perform any comparisons, evaluations andanalysis.

While certain embodiments of the invention are described in detailabove, the scope of the invention is not considered limited by suchdisclosure, and modifications are possible without departing from thespirit of the invention as evidenced by the following claims:

What is claimed is:
 1. A diagnostic method for a weighing scale havingmultiple force measuring devices, comprising: selecting a plurality oflike weighing scale components to be monitored; selecting as adiagnostic parameter an operating parameter that is common to theselected like weighing scale components and should have approximatelythe same value for each component during normal operation; receiving ata computer device from each of the selected weighing scale components,an output signal representative of the selected diagnostic parameter; atthe computer device, comparing the output signal value received fromeach selected weighing scale component to the output signal valuesreceived from all of the other selected weighing scale components; atthe computer device, calculating the difference between the outputsignal values of any two selected weighing scale components; at thecomputer device, comparing the difference between the output signalvalues of any two selected weighing scale components with a maximumallowed difference; and if the calculated difference is determined bythe computer device to exceed the maximum allowed difference, using thecomputer device to indicate a problem.
 2. The diagnostic method of claim1, wherein the weighing scale components to be monitored are the forcemeasuring devices of the weighing scale.
 3. The diagnostic method ofclaim 2, wherein the force measuring devices are load cells.
 4. Thediagnostic method of claim 3, wherein the operating parameter isselected from the group consisting of temperature, digital signalvoltage, supply voltage and zero balance change.
 5. The diagnosticmethod of claim 1, wherein the calculated difference between the outputsignal values of any two selected weighing scale components representsthe maximum difference based on the maximum and minimum output signalvalues.
 6. The diagnostic method of claim 1, wherein the indication of aproblem includes the identification of a particular weighing-scalecomponent(s).
 7. A diagnostic method for a weighing scale havingmultiple force measuring devices, comprising: selecting a plurality oflike weighing scale components to be monitored; selecting as adiagnostic parameter an operating parameter that is common to theselected like weighing scale components and should have approximatelythe same value for each component during normal operation; receiving ata computer device from each of the selected weighing scale components,an output signal representative of the selected diagnostic parameter; atthe computer device, calculating a measure of central tendency of thereceived diagnostic parameter output signal values received from theselected weighing scale components; at the computer device, comparingthe diagnostic parameter output signal value of each weighing scalecomponent to the calculated measure of central tendency of thediagnostic parameter output signal values; at the computer device,calculating a deviation of the diagnostic parameter output signal valueof each weighing scale component from the calculated measure of centraltendency of the diagnostic parameter output signal values; and if thecalculated deviation associated with a given weighing scale component isdetermined by the computer device to exceed a maximum allowed deviation,using the computer device to indicate a problem.
 8. The diagnosticmethod of claim 7, wherein the weighing scale components to be monitoredare the force measuring devices of the weighing scale.
 9. The diagnosticmethod of claim 8, wherein the force measuring devices are load cells.10. The diagnostic method of claim 9, wherein the operating parameter isselected from the group consisting of temperature, digital signalvoltage, supply voltage and zero balance change.
 11. The diagnosticmethod of claim 7, wherein the measure of central tendency is themedian.
 12. The diagnostic method of claim 7, wherein the indication ofa problem includes the identification of a particular weighing-scalecomponent(s).
 13. A diagnostic method for a weighing scale havingmultiple force measuring modules, comprising: selecting a plurality oflike weighing scale components to be monitored; selecting as adiagnostic parameter an operating parameter that is common to theselected like weighing scale components and should have approximatelythe same value for each component during normal operation; receiving ata computer device from each of the selected weighing scale components,an output signal representative of the selected diagnostic parameter; atthe computer device, applying a standard statistical test to thereceived diagnostic parameter output signal values received from theselected weighing scale components; at the computer device, determiningif the results of the statistical tests indicate that the diagnosticparameter output signal value of any weighing scale component is astatistical outlier compared to the diagnostic parameter output signalvalues of the other weighing scale components; and if the diagnosticparameter output signal value of a given weighing scale component isstatistically determined by the computer device to be an outlier, usingthe computer device to indicate a problem.
 14. The diagnostic method ofclaim 13, wherein the weighing scale components to be monitored are theforce measuring devices of the weighing scale.
 15. The diagnostic methodof claim 14, wherein the force measuring devices are load cells.
 16. Thediagnostic method of claim 15, wherein the operating parameter isselected from the group consisting of temperature, digital signalvoltage, supply voltage and zero balance change.
 17. The diagnosticmethod of claim 13, wherein the standard statistical test to be appliedis Chauvenet's Criterion.
 18. The diagnostic method of claim 13, whereinthe indication of a problem includes the identification of a particularweighing-scale component(s).
 19. A diagnostic method for a weighingscale having multiple force measuring devices, comprising: selecting aplurality of like weighing scale components to be monitored; selectingas a diagnostic parameter an operating parameter that is common to theselected like weighing scale components and should have approximatelythe same value for each component during normal operation; receiving ata computer device from each of the selected weighing scale components,an output signal representative of the selected diagnostic parameter; atthe computer device, performing a statistical analysis that considersthe output signal of a given weighing scale component relative to theoutput signal of another weighing scale component or to the collectiveoutput signals of all of the other weighing scale components; and if theresults of the statistical analysis performed by the computer devicewith respect to any given weighing scale component indicates anabnormality in the output signal value of that weighing scale device,using the computer device to indicate a problem.
 20. The diagnosticmethod of claim 19, wherein the statistical analysis performed by thecomputer device includes: calculating a measure of central tendency ofthe received diagnostic parameter output signal values received from theselected weighing scale components; and comparing the diagnosticparameter output signal value of each weighing scale component to thecalculated measure of central tendency of the diagnostic parameteroutput signal values.
 21. The diagnostic method of claim 20, wherein thecomputer device will indicate a problem with a given weighing scalecomponent when the calculated deviation associated with that weighingscale component is determined to exceed a maximum allowed deviation. 22.The diagnostic method of claim 19, wherein the statistical analysisperformed by the computer device includes: applying a standardstatistical test to the received diagnostic parameter output signalvalues received from the selected weighing scale components; anddetermining if the results of the statistical tests indicate that thediagnostic parameter output signal value of any weighing scale componentis a statistical outlier compared to the diagnostic parameter outputsignal values of the other weighing scale components.
 23. The diagnosticmethod of claim 22, wherein the computer device will indicate a problemwith a given weighing scale component when the diagnostic parameteroutput signal value of a given weighing scale component is statisticallydetermined by the computer device to be an outlier.
 24. The diagnosticmethod of claim 22, wherein the standard statistical test is selectedfrom the group consisting of Chauvenet's Criterion, Grubbs' Test forOutliers, Peirce's Criterion, and Dixon's Q Test.